Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #323134; Unpublished
Judges Sawyer, Beckering, and Boonstra; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that res judicata barred plaintiff from bringing her claim for UM/UIM benefits against State Farm, because it had already been determined in a prior action that plaintiff was not entitled to PIP benefits and, therefore, she could have raised the UM/UIM claim in the previous proceeding involving PIP benefits.
Plaintiff in this case owned a Chevy Cavalier with her mother, who was unable to drive the vehicle. While plaintiff was driving the Cavalier, defendant Angela Ormond struck the vehicle, resulting in injuries to plaintiff. The Cavalier was also often driven by another individual, Richard Huling. Huling was unrelated to plaintiff and her mother, and did not reside with them. At the time of the accident, the Cavalier was uninsured. Several days before the accident, however, Huling had purchased a policy from defendant State Farm that included the Cavalier. State Farm denied PIP coverage to plaintiff and she filed an action seeking benefits. The trial court granted summary disposition to State Farm, finding the Cavalier was uninsured (that decision was not appealed). Plaintiff then filed this action seeking UM/UIM benefits under the same State Farm policy. State Farm moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiffâs claim was barred by res judicata and that she was not entitled to UM/UIM benefits because she was not an insured under the policy issued to Huling. The trial court denied State Farmâs motion, finding that Huling could be considered the owner of the Cavalier because he had use of it for more than 30 days, and that UM/UIM coverage extended to any person occupying the vehicle.
The Court of Appeals held that res judicata barred plaintiff's claim for UM/UIM benefits. In this regard, the court said:
"The original action was decided on the merits. Both plaintiff and defendant were parties to the prior action. And the current matter could have been resolved in the prior action. Indeed, the reason both claims fail is based upon the same essential fact: whether Huling could be considered an owner of the vehicle. Because of our resolution of this issue, we need not address defendantâs argument that the trial court erred in concluding that there was a genuine issue of material fact on whether Huling was a constructive owner of the Cavalier."
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case.
